Multnomah County Sheriff's Office v. Edwards
361 Or. 761
| Or. | 2017Background
- Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (county) ran an internal promotion for lieutenant; three qualified applicants applied, including Edwards, a disabled veteran eligible for veterans’ preference.
- The selection process used a letter of interest, resume, a 360-degree survey, and an internal command staff interview; no numeric scoring was used and the job posting did not mention veterans’ preference.
- County personnel gave inconsistent testimony about whether and how a disabled-veteran preference was to be applied, who would apply it, and when it would be applied during the process.
- BOLI found the county violated ORS 408.230(2)(c) because it failed to "devise and apply methods" for giving special consideration to veterans in unscored hiring processes, and ordered injunctive relief, training, and $50,000 for Edwards’s emotional distress.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals and BOLI’s final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "devise and apply methods" in ORS 408.230(2)(c) | BOLI: statute requires a discernible, stable method; agency interpretation reasonable | County: statute allows flexible, ad hoc approaches; no preexisting written policy required | Court: "devise and apply methods" means formulate and use a standard/regular procedure developed in advance; no deference to agency interpretation on exact wording but ordinary meaning controls |
| Whether county violated ORS 408.230(2)(c) | BOLI: factual record shows no coherent method and inconsistent application | County: witnesses consistently treated Edwards as "top candidate" so preference was given | Court: agency findings were uncontested and supported; county failed to devise or consistently apply any method; violation affirmed |
| Validity of BOLI rule requiring preference be applied at "each stage" | BOLI: rule consistent with statute’s intent to ensure meaningful preference | County: rule exceeds agency authority | Court: did not decide the rule’s validity because statutory violation resolution made it unnecessary (moot) |
| BOLI authority to award emotional distress damages | County: BOLI lacked authority to award emotional distress (raised on review) | BOLI: agency has authority to eliminate effects of unlawful practice including actual damages | Court: county failed to preserve the argument; claim is about lawfulness of exercise of authority not agency jurisdiction; not reached on merits; plain-error standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation framework)
- OR-OSHA v. CBI Servs., Inc., 356 Or 577 (2014) (when to defer to agency interpretation)
- Springfield Educ. Assn. v. Sch. Dist., 290 Or 217 (1980) (agency construction discussion)
- Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. 509-J v. FDAB, 311 Or 389 (1991) (unchallenged agency findings bind reviewing court)
- SAIF v. Shipley, 326 Or 557 (1998) (jurisdictional challenges may be raised on appeal)
- Diack v. City of Portland, 306 Or 287 (1988) (agency jurisdiction defined by legislature-authorized matters)
- Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc., 330 Or 376 (2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- PGE v. Ebasco Servs., Inc., 353 Or 849 (2013) (limits on collateral attack and preservation of error)